I saw a clip of Donald Trump at one of his rallies. His security men were throwing out a dissenter. Trump told the crowd to throw the guy out into the cold and take his coat. Throw him out into the cold with no coat.

Perfect.

Alex.

I'm sensing some fear Alex. I think what happened in your country last election is about to happen over here.

I don't think you should be afraid of politics. One great advantage of democratic politics is that it shows us things that we may or may not like in human discourse, and gives us at least some opportunity to attend to them. A disadvantage is that sometimes a low life gets into power.

Social libertarians like myself are in a fortunate position as there are things that we like in most strands of politics, but we don't have to like everything. Some of Trump's methods are not to my taste. Of course, a question is whether my tastes reflect the tastes of others? For example, Real Clear Politics is currently showing Clinton with a 10+ lead over Trump and Sanders with a 15+ lead over Trump. Interesting times, as the Chinese say.

I don't think you should be afraid of politics. One great advantage of democratic politics is that it shows us things that we may or may not like in human discourse, and gives us at least some opportunity to attend to them. A disadvantage is that sometimes a low life gets into power.

One great advantage of democratic politics is that it shows us things that we may or may not like in human discourse, and gives us at least some opportunity to attend to them. A disadvantage is that sometimes a low life gets into power.

Yes. obama was a catastrophic mistake. Record setting poverty, wealth disparity, a revival of terrorism and pummeling of our civil rights. Latest poll show record lows in race relations. It's been a nightmare. It's easy to see why polls report Americans find him our worst President.

Social libertarians like myself are in a fortunate position as there are things that we like in most strands of politics, but we don't have to like everything. Some of Trump's methods are not to my taste. Of course, a question is whether my tastes reflect the tastes of others? For example, Real Clear Politics is currently showing Clinton with a 10+ lead over Trump and Sanders with a 15+ lead over Trump. Interesting times, as the Chinese say.

Alex.

Innumeracy strikes you again e, RCP average has Trump down 2.5%, which is within the margin of error of the polls. Given that the polls have undercounted conservative voters even in your country as well as ours dramatically in the last couple of elections and Trump should get a 3-5% bump once the party unites around him after the primary is decided, this makes Trump practically a lay up.

HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.

[...]

Heidi Cruz is as business-side-of-the-establishment as they come.

“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA

The Associated Press notes that during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms. Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches.

“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA

The Associated Press notes that during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms. Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches.

Michael R. Bloomberg has instructed advisers to draw up plans for a potential independent campaign in this year’s presidential race. His advisers and associates said he was galled by Donald J. Trump’s dominance of the Republican field, and troubled by Hillary Clinton’s stumbles and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the Democratic side.

Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has in the past contemplated running for the White House on a third-party ticket, but always concluded he could not win. A confluence of unlikely events in the 2016 election, however, has given new impetus to his presidential aspirations.

[...]

In the year of the insurgency, Bloomberg wants to run as a mainstream candidate with the DNC's backing.

“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA

I will start my persuasion by reminding you that I wrote a book about how systems are better than goals. What follows will make more sense to those who are familiar with the concept. The basic idea is that systems are something you do on a regular basis to improve the odds of a good outcome, but you might not know exactly what the outcome will be. That gives you the most ways to win. A goal gives you exactly one way to win – the goal itself – and that’s not always the smart way to go when the environment is complicated and unpredictable.

In simple situations, goals are great. You know exactly what you want and you know what you have to do. But the world is no longer simple. It changes faster than you can write your goals. In this environment, we need systems that give us the most options and the best odds. That’s the reframing I’m bringing to this topic.

You are probably thinking that a year from now we will have a leader named Sanders, Trump, or maybe Bloomberg. Stop thinking that.

We can have all three. We just have to ask.

Individually, the candidates are flawed grandfathers without the necessary tools to get the job done. But they are also patriots more than they are politicians. All three men have reached the point in their lives in which they are focused on giving back. I say we take them up on the offer. I want all three of them.

The ideal arrangement for a new government – and one that requires no change to the Constitution – would feature a President Trump running weekly televised meetings (yes, like The Apprentice) to decide the big issues. And sitting in every meeting should be Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg, supported by their experts, arguing their cases.

If you imagine healthcare as a topic, Sanders has a vision of universal coverage. But how? The how would be the topic of the meetings. I want Sanders to show his work, backed by independent experts, and I want to watch Trump challenge the assumptions in real-time. I want Bloomberg in the room as the voice of reason and the promoter of other options. I can think of no better way to educate the public. Ratings would be huge, no matter how you spell that word.

Are you worried that Bernie Sanders’ plans don’t pencil out? Let’s see him show his work. Let’s see some options.

Are you worried that a President Trump would ignore climate change science? Let’s make that a meeting topic. I see little risk of Trump ignoring science if he has to wrestle with the topic in front of the public. Let’s watch him roll around in the science while we watch, and see what sticks.

Immigration too. Let’s see some real plans on how to build a wall, and how to deal with illegal immigrants in a way that doesn’t split the country in two. Let’s see some options presented to the president right in front of us and see how he deals with it.

Also keep in mind that Trump’s priorities are more of the tourniquet type. Trump wants to plug the holes in immigration, renegotiate some Chinese deals, and kill the money-snakes in government. That’s near-term stuff to stop the bleeding.

Sanders is more of a long-term visionary. His ideas require some planning, some sort of transition, and definitely time. A Trump presidency would shine a light on those plans and perhaps improve the odds. I don’t believe most citizens disagree with the idea of universal healthcare; we just need to figure out how to pay for it and how to keep it simple. The details are where the disagreement happens. So let’s see the details in a live forum. Maybe we can figure out a way to move in the right direction.

If you look at Sanders’ other socialist ideas, they all sound good except for the part where we have to pay for them. The details matter, so let’s build a political system where we can see those details.

To be perfectly clear, I support a Trump presidency ONLY under the following conditions:

1. Trump commits to regular televised meetings on key topics.

2. Both Sanders and Bloomberg are on the team.

3. Trump adds women and minority leaders to the televised meetings, as needed, so we hear all voices.

That’s what a system looks like. It gets us away from the ridiculous process in which voters try to decide which candidate is doing the best job of lying about how easy it will be to achieve his or her goals.

All we need for this vision to happen is Trump agreeing now to offer both Sanders and Bloomberg key spots in his administration’s future televised policy debates.

If you are worried that a President Trump would turn into a dictator, I remind you that his core supporters are the most well-armed, freedom-loving citizens in the country. They wouldn’t like it if Trump goes dictator. And Trump wouldn’t enjoy being the leader of a country where he can’t go outdoors in public. You’re safer than you think.

In the United States, we might never get another chance to fire the government. We can do this.

“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA

I will start my persuasion by reminding you that I wrote a book about how systems are better than goals. What follows will make more sense to those who are familiar with the concept. The basic idea is that systems are something you do on a regular basis to improve the odds of a good outcome, but you might not know exactly what the outcome will be. That gives you the most ways to win. A goal gives you exactly one way to win – the goal itself – and that’s not always the smart way to go when the environment is complicated and unpredictable.

In simple situations, goals are great. You know exactly what you want and you know what you have to do. But the world is no longer simple. It changes faster than you can write your goals. In this environment, we need systems that give us the most options and the best odds. That’s the reframing I’m bringing to this topic.

You are probably thinking that a year from now we will have a leader named Sanders, Trump, or maybe Bloomberg. Stop thinking that.

We can have all three. We just have to ask.

Individually, the candidates are flawed grandfathers without the necessary tools to get the job done. But they are also patriots more than they are politicians. All three men have reached the point in their lives in which they are focused on giving back. I say we take them up on the offer. I want all three of them.

The ideal arrangement for a new government – and one that requires no change to the Constitution – would feature a President Trump running weekly televised meetings (yes, like The Apprentice) to decide the big issues. And sitting in every meeting should be Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg, supported by their experts, arguing their cases.

If you imagine healthcare as a topic, Sanders has a vision of universal coverage. But how? The how would be the topic of the meetings. I want Sanders to show his work, backed by independent experts, and I want to watch Trump challenge the assumptions in real-time. I want Bloomberg in the room as the voice of reason and the promoter of other options. I can think of no better way to educate the public. Ratings would be huge, no matter how you spell that word.

Are you worried that Bernie Sanders’ plans don’t pencil out? Let’s see him show his work. Let’s see some options.

Are you worried that a President Trump would ignore climate change science? Let’s make that a meeting topic. I see little risk of Trump ignoring science if he has to wrestle with the topic in front of the public. Let’s watch him roll around in the science while we watch, and see what sticks.

Immigration too. Let’s see some real plans on how to build a wall, and how to deal with illegal immigrants in a way that doesn’t split the country in two. Let’s see some options presented to the president right in front of us and see how he deals with it.

Also keep in mind that Trump’s priorities are more of the tourniquet type. Trump wants to plug the holes in immigration, renegotiate some Chinese deals, and kill the money-snakes in government. That’s near-term stuff to stop the bleeding.

Sanders is more of a long-term visionary. His ideas require some planning, some sort of transition, and definitely time. A Trump presidency would shine a light on those plans and perhaps improve the odds. I don’t believe most citizens disagree with the idea of universal healthcare; we just need to figure out how to pay for it and how to keep it simple. The details are where the disagreement happens. So let’s see the details in a live forum. Maybe we can figure out a way to move in the right direction.

If you look at Sanders’ other socialist ideas, they all sound good except for the part where we have to pay for them. The details matter, so let’s build a political system where we can see those details.

To be perfectly clear, I support a Trump presidency ONLY under the following conditions:

1. Trump commits to regular televised meetings on key topics.

2. Both Sanders and Bloomberg are on the team.

3. Trump adds women and minority leaders to the televised meetings, as needed, so we hear all voices.

That’s what a system looks like. It gets us away from the ridiculous process in which voters try to decide which candidate is doing the best job of lying about how easy it will be to achieve his or her goals.

All we need for this vision to happen is Trump agreeing now to offer both Sanders and Bloomberg key spots in his administration’s future televised policy debates.

If you are worried that a President Trump would turn into a dictator, I remind you that his core supporters are the most well-armed, freedom-loving citizens in the country. They wouldn’t like it if Trump goes dictator. And Trump wouldn’t enjoy being the leader of a country where he can’t go outdoors in public. You’re safer than you think.

In the United States, we might never get another chance to fire the government. We can do this.

Better yet why not make a reality TV show like the apprentice where presidential wannbes vie amoung themselves to win with Donald Trump firing them one by one.

Last edited by Doc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

I will start my persuasion by reminding you that I wrote a book about how systems are better than goals. What follows will make more sense to those who are familiar with the concept. The basic idea is that systems are something you do on a regular basis to improve the odds of a good outcome, but you might not know exactly what the outcome will be. That gives you the most ways to win. A goal gives you exactly one way to win – the goal itself – and that’s not always the smart way to go when the environment is complicated and unpredictable.

In simple situations, goals are great. You know exactly what you want and you know what you have to do. But the world is no longer simple. It changes faster than you can write your goals. In this environment, we need systems that give us the most options and the best odds. That’s the reframing I’m bringing to this topic.

You are probably thinking that a year from now we will have a leader named Sanders, Trump, or maybe Bloomberg. Stop thinking that.

We can have all three. We just have to ask.

Individually, the candidates are flawed grandfathers without the necessary tools to get the job done. But they are also patriots more than they are politicians. All three men have reached the point in their lives in which they are focused on giving back. I say we take them up on the offer. I want all three of them.

The ideal arrangement for a new government – and one that requires no change to the Constitution – would feature a President Trump running weekly televised meetings (yes, like The Apprentice) to decide the big issues. And sitting in every meeting should be Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg, supported by their experts, arguing their cases.

If you imagine healthcare as a topic, Sanders has a vision of universal coverage. But how? The how would be the topic of the meetings. I want Sanders to show his work, backed by independent experts, and I want to watch Trump challenge the assumptions in real-time. I want Bloomberg in the room as the voice of reason and the promoter of other options. I can think of no better way to educate the public. Ratings would be huge, no matter how you spell that word.

Are you worried that Bernie Sanders’ plans don’t pencil out? Let’s see him show his work. Let’s see some options.

Are you worried that a President Trump would ignore climate change science? Let’s make that a meeting topic. I see little risk of Trump ignoring science if he has to wrestle with the topic in front of the public. Let’s watch him roll around in the science while we watch, and see what sticks.

Immigration too. Let’s see some real plans on how to build a wall, and how to deal with illegal immigrants in a way that doesn’t split the country in two. Let’s see some options presented to the president right in front of us and see how he deals with it.

Also keep in mind that Trump’s priorities are more of the tourniquet type. Trump wants to plug the holes in immigration, renegotiate some Chinese deals, and kill the money-snakes in government. That’s near-term stuff to stop the bleeding.

Sanders is more of a long-term visionary. His ideas require some planning, some sort of transition, and definitely time. A Trump presidency would shine a light on those plans and perhaps improve the odds. I don’t believe most citizens disagree with the idea of universal healthcare; we just need to figure out how to pay for it and how to keep it simple. The details are where the disagreement happens. So let’s see the details in a live forum. Maybe we can figure out a way to move in the right direction.

If you look at Sanders’ other socialist ideas, they all sound good except for the part where we have to pay for them. The details matter, so let’s build a political system where we can see those details.

To be perfectly clear, I support a Trump presidency ONLY under the following conditions:

1. Trump commits to regular televised meetings on key topics.

2. Both Sanders and Bloomberg are on the team.

3. Trump adds women and minority leaders to the televised meetings, as needed, so we hear all voices.

That’s what a system looks like. It gets us away from the ridiculous process in which voters try to decide which candidate is doing the best job of lying about how easy it will be to achieve his or her goals.

All we need for this vision to happen is Trump agreeing now to offer both Sanders and Bloomberg key spots in his administration’s future televised policy debates.

If you are worried that a President Trump would turn into a dictator, I remind you that his core supporters are the most well-armed, freedom-loving citizens in the country. They wouldn’t like it if Trump goes dictator. And Trump wouldn’t enjoy being the leader of a country where he can’t go outdoors in public. You’re safer than you think.

In the United States, we might never get another chance to fire the government. We can do this.

I like it. Any discussion that does not include costs, timelines, implementation strategies, and assigned ownership responsibilities is worthless.

the good news: there appears to be about 320 million different opinions about America is.the bad news: except for mine, they're all wrong.

When you have an anti-racist hammer in your hand, you tend to see everyone who disagrees with you as a racist.

. . the Vermont senator has criticized her for the $675,000 she was paid for three speeches she gave to the firm in 2013. It's the latest effort by Sanders to tap voter anger about what he calls a “rigged economy,” with polls showing Sanders and Clinton in a close race in Monday's Iowa caucuses.

As the words “Goldman Sachs” appear on the screen, with the firm's Jersey City office depicted, the ad mentions the firm's agreement announced on Jan. 14 to settle a U.S. investigation into its handling of mortgage-backed securities. It helped trigger “the financial meltdown” and put millions of people out of their jobs and homes, the ad says.

“How does Wall Street get away with it? Millions in campaign contributions and speaking fees,” the ad says. “Our economy works for Wall Street because it's rigged by Wall Street, and that's the problem. As long as Washington is bought and paid for, we can't build an economy that works for people.”

.

Not a single Wall Street guy went to jail .. in contrary .. their asset worth nickel on the dollar, were compensated dollar for dollar, by FED .. and .. when asked for detail, FED answered "non of your business" (FED a private bank owned by private individuals .. google "who owns FED").